matplotlib-devel Mailing List for matplotlib (Page 3)

On 10/15/2012 12:52 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 2012年10月15日 5:50 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> Sorry to be jumping in on this late -- I didn't have a chance to catch
>> up with this over the weekend.
>>
>> I think I generally side with Eric here -- the rc candidate cycle is
>> intended to be quite conservative. Nelle's pull requests are very
>> welcome improvements, but they are also quite large and I am concerned
>> about breakage slipping through the cracks. To the extent that Nelle is
>> finding undefined variable bugs etc. with her tool, I think we should
>> probably try and fix those -- I know we've been doing that already and
>> that's great.
>>
>> I think we should take the 1.2.x milestone off of all of the PEP8
>> changes and keep all of them on master going forward. Yes, the merging
>> may be difficult while we are still in maintaining 1.2.x, but I think
>> that's trivial compared to all of the additional testing and push back
>> of the 1.2.0 release that this is currently causing.
>>
>> As for backing out things that were already cherry-picked -- that's a
>> tough call. I don't want to exacerbate the situation by causing further
>> risk. Maybe we just back out everything since the rc2?
> It looks like that would itself cause a huge amount of additional churn,
> and more risk than leaving things as they are. At this point I suggest
> leaving everything in that is presently in, try to get in the last few
> bug fixes and tweaks, tag an rc3, and then target a release date,
> somewhere in in the 2-4 weeks hence range. In the meantime, PEP8 PRs
> can be completed on master, after which feature enhancements can proceed
> on master.
Yeah -- having just looked back at all of the cherry-picks at issue, 
that's where I've come down as well. Let's leave them in, but not put 
any further PEP8-only fixes on 1.2.x. I'll remove the 1.2.x issue 
labels on the few PRs in progress.
I also think it's not the end of the world if additional feature 
enhancements go on in master in the meantime. Any merge conflicts with 
the PEP8 work will be noted by git and we can address them as they come.
Any strong objections to this?
Mike
>
> Eric
>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/15/2012 12:10 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
>>> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
>>>>> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>>>>
>>>>> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
>>>>> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize my view:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>>>>> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>>>>> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>>>>> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>>>>> PRs into master.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>>>>> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>>>>> probability that it will be solid.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
>>>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
>>>>> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>>>>> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>>>>> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>>>>> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>>>>> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
>>>>> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
>>>>> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>>>>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>>>>> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
>>>>> a final rc and a release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>>>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>>>>> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>>>>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>> I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
>>>> conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
>>>> not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>>>>
>>>> If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
>>>> what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
>>>> before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>>>>
>>> Damon,
>>>
>>> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
>>> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
>>> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
>>> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
>>> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
>>> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
>>> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
>>> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
>>> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
>>> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
>>> Mat...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
>> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
>> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
>> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
>> Mat...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel

On 2012年10月15日 5:50 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Sorry to be jumping in on this late -- I didn't have a chance to catch
> up with this over the weekend.
>
> I think I generally side with Eric here -- the rc candidate cycle is
> intended to be quite conservative. Nelle's pull requests are very
> welcome improvements, but they are also quite large and I am concerned
> about breakage slipping through the cracks. To the extent that Nelle is
> finding undefined variable bugs etc. with her tool, I think we should
> probably try and fix those -- I know we've been doing that already and
> that's great.
>
> I think we should take the 1.2.x milestone off of all of the PEP8
> changes and keep all of them on master going forward. Yes, the merging
> may be difficult while we are still in maintaining 1.2.x, but I think
> that's trivial compared to all of the additional testing and push back
> of the 1.2.0 release that this is currently causing.
>
> As for backing out things that were already cherry-picked -- that's a
> tough call. I don't want to exacerbate the situation by causing further
> risk. Maybe we just back out everything since the rc2?
It looks like that would itself cause a huge amount of additional churn, 
and more risk than leaving things as they are. At this point I suggest 
leaving everything in that is presently in, try to get in the last few 
bug fixes and tweaks, tag an rc3, and then target a release date, 
somewhere in in the 2-4 weeks hence range. In the meantime, PEP8 PRs 
can be completed on master, after which feature enhancements can proceed 
on master.
Eric
>
> Mike
>
> On 10/15/2012 12:10 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
>>>> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>>>
>>>> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
>>>> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>>>
>>>> To summarize my view:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>>>> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>>>> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>>>> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>>>> PRs into master.
>>>>
>>>> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>>>> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>>>> probability that it will be solid.
>>>>
>>>> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
>>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
>>>> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>>>> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>>>> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>>>> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>>>> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>>>
>>>> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
>>>> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
>>>> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>>>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>>>> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
>>>> a final rc and a release.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>>>> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>>>
>>>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>>>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>>>
>>>> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>> I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
>>> conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
>>> not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>>>
>>> If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
>>> what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
>>> before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>>>
>> Damon,
>>
>> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
>> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
>> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
>> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
>> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
>> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
>> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
>> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
>> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
>> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
>> Mat...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>

On 10/15/2012 08:11 AM, Phil Elson wrote:
> Firstly, I think you are right to bring this up Eric, we should all 
> agree what the best course is to take, and then all work together to 
> get us there with the least amount of disruption possible.
>
> > if we leave PEP8 out of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, 
> v1.2.x will be changed
> > only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release
>
> I agree. I think it is important here to be very clear about what 
> constitutes a "critical bug". In my opinion, releasing a v1.2.1 would 
> be a very last resort and I would sooner see us move forward by fixing 
> bugs in a new feature release (1.3). In order to do this we should 
> have a schedule for our next release *now*, and ideally it shouldn't 
> be that far away (i.e. no longer than 8-9 months). Some of my reasons 
> for this assertion include:
>
> 1. We have an amazing community of people who help us build our
> release bundles - so the actual release deployment mechanisms are
> no longer a limiting factor
> 2. We have a long period between identification of features, their
> implementation and then seeing those features available in the
> latest release to our users. I would love to see that time shorten
> to share some of the cool new features that are being developed
> with non-developers sooner so that we can get feedback and go
> through the development cycle quicker.
> 3. Currently making a release is a massive task which takes many
> developers out of actually being able to focus on new features or
> bugfixes. Having a quicker release cycle should mean we have fewer
> large changes per release and reduce the need we currently have to
> squeeze as much as we can into the next release - ultimately I
> think it will mean that we need to expend fewer developer hours
> focused on release management and last minute code reviewing.
>
I think a perennial problem has simply been keeping up with the firehose 
of bugs, and we've been doing a lot of very impressive catch-up during 
this release cycle.
I'm not sure that more frequent releases is necessarily the answer. The 
amount of work doesn't decrease -- it's just becomes less "bursty".
We also have the (not unique to us problem) that a key platform for 
users (Windows) is not well-represented in the set of developers, and 
the release candidates are always helpful for ferretting out those bugs 
that don't get discovered in the normal course of things.
Mike
> This is not intended to be a criticism of our current system, simply 
> an observation that I think could help us to be more responsive and 
> agile in the future. If anybody wants to share their experiences with 
> other development methodologies I would love to hear about them (I 
> guess if it is not strictly related to this thread, then perhaps we 
> should start up a new conversation on the mailing list).
>
> In short, provided we can agree a future matplotlib version schedule, 
> I agree with Eric. In terms of reverting the already cherry picked 
> commits, I am less sure. My heart is telling me to draw a line in the 
> sand, accept what is on the v1.2.x branch currently, and accept the 
> suggested approach for all future commits.
>
> Finally, I agree with Ben. This is not a criticism of Nelle's PEP8 
> pull requests, or of Damon and other's hard work in reviewing and 
> merging them, it is simply that we should agree the best course to get 
> the best possible release of v1.2.0 without dragging it out long 
> beyond our original schedule.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15 October 2012 09:08, Damon McDougall <dam...@gm... 
> <mailto:dam...@gm...>> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Nelle Varoquaux
> > <nel...@gm... <mailto:nel...@gm...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15 October 2012 06:10, Eric Firing <ef...@ha... 
> <mailto:ef...@ha...>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha... 
> <mailto:ef...@ha...>> wrote:
> >>> >> All,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some
> >>> >> agreement
> >>> >> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this 
> thread:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the
> >>> >> discussion
> >>> >> it prompted, hence the present message.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> To summarize my view:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which 
> have been
> >>> >> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect 
> of the
> >>> >> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a 
> garden hose
> >>> >> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging 
> of these
> >>> >> PRs into master.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last 
> few bug
> >>> >> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
> >>> >> probability that it will be solid.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes 
> should
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the
> >>> >> latter
> >>> >> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
> >>> >> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the 
> strategy
> >>> >> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
> >>> >> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the 
> maintenance branch
> >>> >> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter 
> what we
> >>> >> do;
> >>> >> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave 
> PEP8
> >>> >> out
> >>> >> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be 
> changed
> >>> >> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. 
> This also
> >>> >> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x
> >>> >> before
> >>> >> a final rc and a release.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
> >>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the 
> v1.2.x
> >>> >> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need 
> to be
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against
> >>> >> v1.2.x.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of 
> strategy?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Eric
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
> >>> > conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm 
> happy to
> >>> > not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
> >>> >
> >>> > If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 
> 1.2.x,
> >>> > what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
> >>> > before the v1.2.x branch was created?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Damon,
> >>>
> >>> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and 
> maybe
> >>> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
> >>> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision 
> tomorrow
> >>> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you 
> could
> >>> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
> >>> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
> >>> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
> >>
> >>
> >> List of commits that were cherry-picked recently (names only, but I 
> can do
> >> the commit id as well):
> >>
> >> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input (patch n°2)
> >> PEP_ fixes on cbook.py
> >> PEP8 fixes 2. => 2.0
> >> PEP8 fixes on tight_bbox.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on tight_layout.py
> >> PEP8 fixes - break points and identation
> >> PEP8 fixes on type1font.py
> >> PEP8 fixes - small backslashes and breaks fixes
> >> PEP8 fixes on transforms.py
> >> FIX - travis-ci is failing
> >> Fix typo in transforms.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on scale.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on legend.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on ticker.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on streamplot.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on stackplot.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on hatch.py
> >> PEP8 fixes on table.py
> >
> > Thanks Nelle.
> >
> > Eric, is the list Nelle has provided what you were expecting?
> >
> > --
> > Damon McDougall
> > http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
> > B2.39
> > Mathematics Institute
> > University of Warwick
> > Coventry
> > West Midlands
> > CV4 7AL
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> > what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> > Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> > Mat...@li... 
> <mailto:Mat...@li...>
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel

Sorry to be jumping in on this late -- I didn't have a chance to catch 
up with this over the weekend.
I think I generally side with Eric here -- the rc candidate cycle is 
intended to be quite conservative. Nelle's pull requests are very 
welcome improvements, but they are also quite large and I am concerned 
about breakage slipping through the cracks. To the extent that Nelle is 
finding undefined variable bugs etc. with her tool, I think we should 
probably try and fix those -- I know we've been doing that already and 
that's great.
I think we should take the 1.2.x milestone off of all of the PEP8 
changes and keep all of them on master going forward. Yes, the merging 
may be difficult while we are still in maintaining 1.2.x, but I think 
that's trivial compared to all of the additional testing and push back 
of the 1.2.0 release that this is currently causing.
As for backing out things that were already cherry-picked -- that's a 
tough call. I don't want to exacerbate the situation by causing further 
risk. Maybe we just back out everything since the rc2?
Mike
On 10/15/2012 12:10 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
>>> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>>
>>> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
>>> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>>
>>> To summarize my view:
>>>
>>> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>>> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>>> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>>> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>>> PRs into master.
>>>
>>> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>>> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>>> probability that it will be solid.
>>>
>>> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
>>> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>>> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>>> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>>> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>>> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>>
>>> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
>>> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
>>> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>>> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
>>> a final rc and a release.
>>>
>>> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>>> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>>
>>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>>
>>> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>>
>>> Eric
>> I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
>> conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
>> not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>>
>> If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
>> what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
>> before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>>
> Damon,
>
> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Eric
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Phil Elson <pel...@gm...> wrote:
>> if we leave PEP8 out of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released,
>> v1.2.x will be changed
>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release
>
> I agree. I think it is important here to be very clear about what
> constitutes a "critical bug". In my opinion, releasing a v1.2.1 would be a
> very last resort and I would sooner see us move forward by fixing bugs in a
> new feature release (1.3). In order to do this we should have a schedule for
> our next release *now*, and ideally it shouldn't be that far away (i.e. no
> longer than 8-9 months). Some of my reasons for this assertion include:
>
> We have an amazing community of people who help us build our release bundles
> - so the actual release deployment mechanisms are no longer a limiting
> factor
> We have a long period between identification of features, their
> implementation and then seeing those features available in the latest
> release to our users. I would love to see that time shorten to share some of
> the cool new features that are being developed with non-developers sooner so
> that we can get feedback and go through the development cycle quicker.
> Currently making a release is a massive task which takes many developers out
> of actually being able to focus on new features or bugfixes. Having a
> quicker release cycle should mean we have fewer large changes per release
> and reduce the need we currently have to squeeze as much as we can into the
> next release - ultimately I think it will mean that we need to expend fewer
> developer hours focused on release management and last minute code
> reviewing.
>
> [snip]
>
> Phil
Why 8 to 9 months? This still seems like a very long time for a
project of this size. Much larger and more complicated projects
(gnome, KDE, Ubuntu) manage a 6 month release cycle, and for projects
this size I follow 2 to 3 months seems more typical. It's there a
reason the release cycle needs to be so long?
With a few month release schedule you can probably manage just 2 betas
and an rc, judging by other projects.
Also, have you considered a "master is always stable" approach, where
branches are only merged when they are complete? This could make
arbitrary release points much easier.
So basically, rather than waiting until you have a lot done for a new
release, you could have an approach more like Firefox now where each
release just had a couple new features, or maybe even just one big
feature. Then a very quick beta cycle, and bugfix releases when
needed, but with that quick of a release cycle bugfix releases should
not be as important as they are now. Other features would be worked
on in parallel in their own branch, ignoring the release entirely.

Firstly, I think you are right to bring this up Eric, we should all agree
what the best course is to take, and then all work together to get us there
with the least amount of disruption possible.
> if we leave PEP8 out of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released,
v1.2.x will be changed
> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release
I agree. I think it is important here to be very clear about what
constitutes a "critical bug". In my opinion, releasing a v1.2.1 would be a
very last resort and I would sooner see us move forward by fixing bugs in a
new feature release (1.3). In order to do this we should have a schedule
for our next release *now*, and ideally it shouldn't be that far away (i.e.
no longer than 8-9 months). Some of my reasons for this assertion include:
 1. We have an amazing community of people who help us build our release
 bundles - so the actual release deployment mechanisms are no longer a
 limiting factor
 2. We have a long period between identification of features, their
 implementation and then seeing those features available in the latest
 release to our users. I would love to see that time shorten to share some
 of the cool new features that are being developed with non-developers
 sooner so that we can get feedback and go through the development cycle
 quicker.
 3. Currently making a release is a massive task which takes many
 developers out of actually being able to focus on new features or bugfixes.
 Having a quicker release cycle should mean we have fewer large changes per
 release and reduce the need we currently have to squeeze as much as we can
 into the next release - ultimately I think it will mean that we need to
 expend fewer developer hours focused on release management and last minute
 code reviewing.
This is not intended to be a criticism of our current system, simply an
observation that I think could help us to be more responsive and agile in
the future. If anybody wants to share their experiences with other
development methodologies I would love to hear about them (I guess if it is
not strictly related to this thread, then perhaps we should start up a new
conversation on the mailing list).
In short, provided we can agree a future matplotlib version schedule, I
agree with Eric. In terms of reverting the already cherry picked commits, I
am less sure. My heart is telling me to draw a line in the sand, accept
what is on the v1.2.x branch currently, and accept the suggested approach
for all future commits.
Finally, I agree with Ben. This is not a criticism of Nelle's PEP8 pull
requests, or of Damon and other's hard work in reviewing and merging them,
it is simply that we should agree the best course to get the best possible
release of v1.2.0 without dragging it out long beyond our original schedule.
Cheers,
Phil
On 15 October 2012 09:08, Damon McDougall <dam...@gm...> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Nelle Varoquaux
> <nel...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 October 2012 06:10, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...>
wrote:
>>> >> All,
>>> >>
>>> >> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some
>>> >> agreement
>>> >> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>> >>
>>> >> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the
>>> >> discussion
>>> >> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>> >>
>>> >> To summarize my view:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have
been
>>> >> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>>> >> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>>> >> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of
these
>>> >> PRs into master.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few
bug
>>> >> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>>> >> probability that it will be solid.
>>> >>
>>> >> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should
>>> >> be
>>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the
>>> >> latter
>>> >> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>>> >> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the
strategy
>>> >> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>>> >> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance
branch
>>> >> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>> >>
>>> >> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we
>>> >> do;
>>> >> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8
>>> >> out
>>> >> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be
changed
>>> >> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This
also
>>> >> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x
>>> >> before
>>> >> a final rc and a release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>>> >> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>> >>
>>> >> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be
>>> >> in
>>> >> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against
>>> >> v1.2.x.
>>> >>
>>> >> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>> >>
>>> >> Eric
>>> >
>>> > I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
>>> > conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
>>> > not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>>> >
>>> > If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
>>> > what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
>>> > before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Damon,
>>>
>>> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
>>> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
>>> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
>>> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
>>> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
>>> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
>>> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>>
>>
>> List of commits that were cherry-picked recently (names only, but I can
do
>> the commit id as well):
>>
>> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input.py
>> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input (patch n°2)
>> PEP_ fixes on cbook.py
>> PEP8 fixes 2. => 2.0
>> PEP8 fixes on tight_bbox.py
>> PEP8 fixes on tight_layout.py
>> PEP8 fixes - break points and identation
>> PEP8 fixes on type1font.py
>> PEP8 fixes - small backslashes and breaks fixes
>> PEP8 fixes on transforms.py
>> FIX - travis-ci is failing
>> Fix typo in transforms.py
>> PEP8 fixes on scale.py
>> PEP8 fixes on legend.py
>> PEP8 fixes on ticker.py
>> PEP8 fixes on streamplot.py
>> PEP8 fixes on stackplot.py
>> PEP8 fixes on hatch.py
>> PEP8 fixes on table.py
>
> Thanks Nelle.
>
> Eric, is the list Nelle has provided what you were expecting?
>
> --
> Damon McDougall
> http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
> B2.39
> Mathematics Institute
> University of Warwick
> Coventry
> West Midlands
> CV4 7AL
> United Kingdom
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel

On Monday, October 15, 2012, Nelle Varoquaux wrote:
>
>
> On 15 October 2012 04:49, Jae-Joon Lee <lee...@gm...<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'lee...@gm...');>
> > wrote:
>
>> I'd agree with Eric on most of his points.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'ef...@ha...');>>
>> wrote:
>> > If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>> > v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>
>> I think it is not a good idea to have a PR that mixes a bug-fix with a
>> PEP8 fix that is not related with the bug.
>> Maybe we need to ask for separate PRs, one for PEP8 fix and one for
>> bug-fixes.
>>
>
> I usually add a FIXME note in the code. I wouldn't rush those bug fixes,
> as they often have been there for a long time and corresponds to code that
> just would not run (hence, code that isn't tested).
>
>
Nelle, let me just take a moment to thank you for all the PEP8 work you
have done. At first I was fine with these PRs being in v1.2.x, but now
that some ports are being removed, perhaps it is best for these to all go
into master.
>
>
Cheers!
Ben Root

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Nelle Varoquaux
<nel...@gm...> wrote:
>
>
> On 15 October 2012 06:10, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>>
>> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some
>> >> agreement
>> >> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>> >>
>> >> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the
>> >> discussion
>> >> it prompted, hence the present message.
>> >>
>> >> To summarize my view:
>> >>
>> >> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>> >> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>> >> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>> >> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>> >> PRs into master.
>> >>
>> >> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>> >> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>> >> probability that it will be solid.
>> >>
>> >> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should
>> >> be
>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the
>> >> latter
>> >> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>> >> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>> >> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>> >> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>> >> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>> >>
>> >> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we
>> >> do;
>> >> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8
>> >> out
>> >> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>> >> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>> >> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x
>> >> before
>> >> a final rc and a release.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>> >> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>> >>
>> >> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be
>> >> in
>> >> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against
>> >> v1.2.x.
>> >>
>> >> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>> >
>> > I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
>> > conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
>> > not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>> >
>> > If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
>> > what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
>> > before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>> >
>>
>> Damon,
>>
>> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
>> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
>> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
>> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
>> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
>> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
>> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>
>
> List of commits that were cherry-picked recently (names only, but I can do
> the commit id as well):
>
> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input.py
> PEP8 fixes on blocking_input (patch n°2)
> PEP_ fixes on cbook.py
> PEP8 fixes 2. => 2.0
> PEP8 fixes on tight_bbox.py
> PEP8 fixes on tight_layout.py
> PEP8 fixes - break points and identation
> PEP8 fixes on type1font.py
> PEP8 fixes - small backslashes and breaks fixes
> PEP8 fixes on transforms.py
> FIX - travis-ci is failing
> Fix typo in transforms.py
> PEP8 fixes on scale.py
> PEP8 fixes on legend.py
> PEP8 fixes on ticker.py
> PEP8 fixes on streamplot.py
> PEP8 fixes on stackplot.py
> PEP8 fixes on hatch.py
> PEP8 fixes on table.py
Thanks Nelle.
Eric, is the list Nelle has provided what you were expecting?
-- 
Damon McDougall
http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
B2.39
Mathematics Institute
University of Warwick
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

On 15 October 2012 04:49, Jae-Joon Lee <lee...@gm...> wrote:
> I'd agree with Eric on most of his points.
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> > If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
> > v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>
> I think it is not a good idea to have a PR that mixes a bug-fix with a
> PEP8 fix that is not related with the bug.
> Maybe we need to ask for separate PRs, one for PEP8 fix and one for
> bug-fixes.
>
I usually add a FIXME note in the code. I wouldn't rush those bug fixes, as
they often have been there for a long time and corresponds to code that
just would not run (hence, code that isn't tested).
>
> Regards,
>
> -JJ
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>

On 15 October 2012 06:10, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
> >> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
> >>
> >>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
> >>
> >> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
> >> it prompted, hence the present message.
> >>
> >> To summarize my view:
> >>
> >> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
> >> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
> >> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
> >> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
> >> PRs into master.
> >>
> >> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
> >> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
> >> probability that it will be solid.
> >>
> >> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
> >> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
> >> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
> >> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
> >> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
> >> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
> >>
> >> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
> >> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
> >> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
> >> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
> >> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
> >> a final rc and a release.
> >>
> >> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
> >> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
> >> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
> >>
> >> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
> >> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
> >>
> >> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
> >>
> >> Eric
> >
> > I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
> > conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
> > not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
> >
> > If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
> > what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
> > before the v1.2.x branch was created?
> >
>
> Damon,
>
> As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe
> not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent
> bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow
> (or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could
> make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to
> 1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with
> qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
>
List of commits that were cherry-picked recently (names only, but I can do
the commit id as well):
PEP8 fixes on blocking_input.py
PEP8 fixes on blocking_input (patch n°2)
PEP_ fixes on cbook.py
PEP8 fixes 2. => 2.0
PEP8 fixes on tight_bbox.py
PEP8 fixes on tight_layout.py
PEP8 fixes - break points and identation
PEP8 fixes on type1font.py
PEP8 fixes - small backslashes and breaks fixes
PEP8 fixes on transforms.py
FIX - travis-ci is failing
Fix typo in transforms.py
PEP8 fixes on scale.py
PEP8 fixes on legend.py
PEP8 fixes on ticker.py
PEP8 fixes on streamplot.py
PEP8 fixes on stackplot.py
PEP8 fixes on hatch.py
PEP8 fixes on table.py
Thanks,
N
>
> Thanks.
>
> Eric
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>

On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
>> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>
>> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
>> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>
>> To summarize my view:
>>
>> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>> PRs into master.
>>
>> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>> probability that it will be solid.
>>
>> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
>> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>
>> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
>> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
>> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
>> a final rc and a release.
>>
>> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>
>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>
>> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>
>> Eric
>
> I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
> conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
> not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>
> If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
> what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
> before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>
Damon,
As I said, I would not advocate trying to back out everything, and maybe 
not any of what is already in 1.2.x, or maybe just the most recent 
bunch. Anticipating that Mike D. might want to make a decision tomorrow 
(or today from your timezone), perhaps it would be helpful if you could 
make an approximate map of which PEP8 commits were cherry-picked to 
1.2.x, and how recently? I have been trying to figure this out with 
qgit and git log with various options, but it makes my head spin.
Thanks.
Eric

On 2012年10月14日 4:49 PM, Jae-Joon Lee wrote:
> I'd agree with Eric on most of his points.
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>
> I think it is not a good idea to have a PR that mixes a bug-fix with a
> PEP8 fix that is not related with the bug.
> Maybe we need to ask for separate PRs, one for PEP8 fix and one for bug-fixes.
I think that has been the case; certainly it has been the general 
intention. I put in the remark you quoted in case there might have been 
one or two small exceptions.
Eric
>
> Regards,
>
> -JJ
>

I'd agree with Eric on most of his points.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
I think it is not a good idea to have a PR that mixes a bug-fix with a
PEP8 fix that is not related with the bug.
Maybe we need to ask for separate PRs, one for PEP8 fix and one for bug-fixes.
Regards,
-JJ

On 14 October 2012 21:22, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
> course.
I'm not familiar with matplotlib's merge strategy, but I'd agree with
you that making those changes post-RC doesn't sound sensible. There's
always the chance of something getting broken, especially when diffs
get too big to review carefully.
Thomas

On 2012年10月14日 12:44 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
>> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>>
>> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
>> it prompted, hence the present message.
>>
>> To summarize my view:
>>
>> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
>> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
>> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
>> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
>> PRs into master.
>>
>> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
>> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
>> probability that it will be solid.
>>
>> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
>> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
>> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
>> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
>> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
>> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>>
>> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
>> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
>> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
>> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
>> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
>> a final rc and a release.
>>
>> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
>> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
>> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>>
>> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
>> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>>
>> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>>
>> Eric
>
> I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
> conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
> not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
>
> If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
> what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
> before the v1.2.x branch was created?
>
I didn't know there were any; but anything that far back should be left 
alone, because subsequent things are based on it, and it has been 
getting tested along the way during the rc cycle. My concern is with 
massive changes shortly before release, and about getting the release 
over and done with so we can move on.
Eric

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> All,
>
> I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement
> as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
>
> The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion
> it prompted, hence the present message.
>
> To summarize my view:
>
> 1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been
> merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the
> situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose
> rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these
> PRs into master.
>
> 2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug
> fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high
> probability that it will be solid.
>
> 3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be
> cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter
> course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release
> seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy
> we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most
> appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch
> into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
>
> 4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do;
> but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out
> of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed
> only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also
> assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before
> a final rc and a release.
>
> Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been
> cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x
> milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
>
> If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in
> v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
>
> Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
>
> Eric
I'm happy with whatever is decided. I'd rather not have merge
conflicts, but if PEP8 is seen as a high-risk merge then I'm happy to
not cherry-pick them into 1.2.x.
If it is decided that we are to revert all the PEP8 changes in 1.2.x,
what should be done about PEP8 changes that were merged into master
before the v1.2.x branch was created?
-- 
Damon McDougall
http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
B2.39
Mathematics Institute
University of Warwick
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

All,
I think we are in a messy situation, and we need to reach some agreement 
as to how to proceed. This has been discussed a bit in this thread:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=507AFDC6.8000801%40hawaii.edu&forum_name=matplotlib-devel
The name of that thread did not reflect the importance of the discussion 
it prompted, hence the present message.
To summarize my view:
1) We have a flood of PEP8 PRs based on master, many of which have been 
merged, some by myself--so I have no objection to this aspect of the 
situation, though I would have preferred a slower pace, a garden hose 
rather than a fire hose. I am happy to see continued merging of these 
PRs into master.
2) We are also trying to stabilize v1.2.x, getting in the last few bug 
fixes and doc updates, so we can get a release out, with a high 
probability that it will be solid.
3) The potential disagreement is over whether the PEP8 changes should be 
cherry-picked into v1.2.x, or simply left in master. I favor the latter 
course. First, because massive code churn shortly before a release 
seems unwise. Second, because I think we should stick to the strategy 
we started with, in which an effort is made to choose the most 
appropriate target for each PR, frequently merge the maintenance branch 
into master, and reserve cherry-picking for occasional corrections.
4) The PEP8 changes will cause some merge problems no matter what we do; 
but I think that they can be minimal and manageable if we leave PEP8 out 
of v1.2.x, and decide that once it is released, v1.2.x will be changed 
only if critical bugs are found, requiring a v1.2.1 release. This also 
assumes that we have only a few changes left to be made in v1.2.x before 
a final rc and a release.
Therefore I recommend that the PEP8 changes that have already been 
cherry-picked into v1.2.x be removed from v1.2.x, and that the v1.2.x 
milestone be removed from all PEP8 changes.
If some of the PEP8 commits include genuine bug-fixes that need to be in 
v1.2.x, then these fixes should be made via PRs directly against v1.2.x.
Agreement? Disagreement? Discussion? Related aspects of strategy?
Eric

On 2012年10月14日 12:17 AM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> That would be my preference; but has Mike written anything about where PEP8
>> changes should go?
>
> All I can find is this: https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/1153
>
Thanks. It's better than nothing, but hardly crystal-clear as guidance 
for the present situation.
Mike's idea, as a compromise, was to "put some cleanup things (such as 
this) prior to the RC" but after creation of the branch. It is now well 
past rc3. It seems to me that putting such massive changes in now means 
that we should get them all in, then have another RC, and then wait a 
while.
In addition, if this is to be the course of action, I think it would be 
better to rebase each PR against v1.2.x prior to review and merging so 
that we can be inspecting exactly the changes that will be made to 
v1.2.x, instead of cherry-picking. I did ask Mike earlier about 
cherry-picking backwards versus merging maintenance into master, and he 
confirmed that the latter remained the normal practice.
My first choice would still be to not put any of the PEP8 things in 
1.2.x, and absolutely minimize future changes on 1.2.x, freezing it ASAP.
Eric

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> That would be my preference; but has Mike written anything about where PEP8
> changes should go?
All I can find is this: https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/1153
-- 
Damon McDougall
http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
B2.39
Mathematics Institute
University of Warwick
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

On 2012年10月13日 1:52 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
>> On 2012年10月13日 1:16 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>>> I probably should have tested the waters first, but I added a PEP8
>>> github label. It's neon orange so you can't miss it. The reason I did
>>> this is so that the list of v1.2.x milestoned issues can be easily
>>> filtered by eye. That way it looks less daunting (since PEP8 isn't a
>>> huge priority for version 1.2 (at least not compared to bug fixes))
>>> and it's easier to see the more important issues.
>>>
>>> It's also temporary. Nelle's done a great job trawling through the
>>> codebase and raising some important points. There's a finite amount of
>>> bulk work to do and then the label can be removed.
>>>
>>> If anyone is offended by neon orange, please feel free to change it. I
>>> just wanted to be able to organise things a little more succinctly.
>>>
>>
>> I don't care about the color, but I don't understand the rationale for
>> putting these PEP8 changes in v1.2.x, especially when they are based on
>> master. It seemed to me that the thing to do was get out a v1.2 release
>> without the PEP8 changes, and let them be the basis in master for
>> proceeding to v1.3.
>>
>> Evidently I was wrong, and we are instead doing massive cherry-picking
>> from master.
>>
>> A disadvantage of this is that PEP8 changes, though seemingly innocuous,
>> could introduce subtle bugs, so rushing them in at the end of the rc
>> cycle seems like it is taking an unnecessary risk for no functional benefit.
>>
>> Eric
>
> The downside of merging them into master without cherry-picking into
> 1.2 is the horrific merge conflicts that will occur whenever there's a
> pull request based on 1.2.
To clarify, you are referring to what would happen if we did not 
cherry-pick, when bug-fixes are made in 1.2, and then 1.2 is merged into 
master? My preference would be to minimize this problem by moving 
quickly on 1.3, with *very* few changes in 1.2.x after the release--just 
quick fixes of critical bugs, if any, for a quick followup release, if 
necessary. In that case there are very few changes that need to be 
merged from 1.2.x into master, hence minimal merge conflicts.
Part of my puzzlement is why, if the strategy is to get all the PEP8 
changes into 1.2, Nelle hasn't been asked to base them on 1.2.x, so they 
could be merged from there into master in the usual way, by merging in 
the whole branch. It seems to me that cherry-picking from master into 
1.2 should be something one does rarely, to fix an error of judgment as 
to which branch a change should go to, not something that should be done 
routinely with a whole series of PRs.
>
> I see your point of introducing subtle bugs. I'm happy to wait on the
> PEP8 changes if it seems too risky.
>
That would be my preference; but has Mike written anything about where 
PEP8 changes should go?
Eric

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> On 2012年10月13日 1:16 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>> I probably should have tested the waters first, but I added a PEP8
>> github label. It's neon orange so you can't miss it. The reason I did
>> this is so that the list of v1.2.x milestoned issues can be easily
>> filtered by eye. That way it looks less daunting (since PEP8 isn't a
>> huge priority for version 1.2 (at least not compared to bug fixes))
>> and it's easier to see the more important issues.
>>
>> It's also temporary. Nelle's done a great job trawling through the
>> codebase and raising some important points. There's a finite amount of
>> bulk work to do and then the label can be removed.
>>
>> If anyone is offended by neon orange, please feel free to change it. I
>> just wanted to be able to organise things a little more succinctly.
>>
>
> I don't care about the color, but I don't understand the rationale for
> putting these PEP8 changes in v1.2.x, especially when they are based on
> master. It seemed to me that the thing to do was get out a v1.2 release
> without the PEP8 changes, and let them be the basis in master for
> proceeding to v1.3.
>
> Evidently I was wrong, and we are instead doing massive cherry-picking
> from master.
>
> A disadvantage of this is that PEP8 changes, though seemingly innocuous,
> could introduce subtle bugs, so rushing them in at the end of the rc
> cycle seems like it is taking an unnecessary risk for no functional benefit.
>
> Eric
The downside of merging them into master without cherry-picking into
1.2 is the horrific merge conflicts that will occur whenever there's a
pull request based on 1.2.
I see your point of introducing subtle bugs. I'm happy to wait on the
PEP8 changes if it seems too risky.
-- 
Damon McDougall
http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
B2.39
Mathematics Institute
University of Warwick
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

On 2012年10月13日 1:16 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
> I probably should have tested the waters first, but I added a PEP8
> github label. It's neon orange so you can't miss it. The reason I did
> this is so that the list of v1.2.x milestoned issues can be easily
> filtered by eye. That way it looks less daunting (since PEP8 isn't a
> huge priority for version 1.2 (at least not compared to bug fixes))
> and it's easier to see the more important issues.
>
> It's also temporary. Nelle's done a great job trawling through the
> codebase and raising some important points. There's a finite amount of
> bulk work to do and then the label can be removed.
>
> If anyone is offended by neon orange, please feel free to change it. I
> just wanted to be able to organise things a little more succinctly.
>
I don't care about the color, but I don't understand the rationale for 
putting these PEP8 changes in v1.2.x, especially when they are based on 
master. It seemed to me that the thing to do was get out a v1.2 release 
without the PEP8 changes, and let them be the basis in master for 
proceeding to v1.3.
Evidently I was wrong, and we are instead doing massive cherry-picking 
from master.
A disadvantage of this is that PEP8 changes, though seemingly innocuous, 
could introduce subtle bugs, so rushing them in at the end of the rc 
cycle seems like it is taking an unnecessary risk for no functional benefit.
Eric

I probably should have tested the waters first, but I added a PEP8
github label. It's neon orange so you can't miss it. The reason I did
this is so that the list of v1.2.x milestoned issues can be easily
filtered by eye. That way it looks less daunting (since PEP8 isn't a
huge priority for version 1.2 (at least not compared to bug fixes))
and it's easier to see the more important issues.
It's also temporary. Nelle's done a great job trawling through the
codebase and raising some important points. There's a finite amount of
bulk work to do and then the label can be removed.
If anyone is offended by neon orange, please feel free to change it. I
just wanted to be able to organise things a little more succinctly.
-- 
Damon McDougall
http://www.damon-is-a-geek.com
B2.39
Mathematics Institute
University of Warwick
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

Exciting stuff!
The latency would be an important factor for the user experience, but this neatly sidesteps a lot of the JS issues. This would keep the main matplotlib machinery on the Python side, which is great.
We could still do simple high-speed annotations requiring very low latency such as cursors or selection rectangles on the JS side. I therefore don't foresee the requirement of sending hundreds or thousands of PNGs during e.g. a simple zoom (smooth resizing might be more intensive...).
Ironically, one of the motivations for the mplh5canvas backend is also to send *less* data over the network, as matplotlib's path simplification would effectively compress large data sets. However, path simplification does not yet apply to scatter plots, an important use case for us (although there are ways to implement that with clustering algorithms).
Obviously, a large number of vector operations could still end up being more data than a PNG file, where this idea will work better. I'm very keen to see how this pans out!
Regards,
Ludwig

That looks nice.
On a related note, should the link below the logo not point to
matplotlib.org since http://matplotlib.sf.net/ just redirects to this site?
In addition it the python code for the sidebar illustrations on the
front side i.e.
http://matplotlib.org/_static/logo_sidebar_horiz.png available somewhere.
The polar plot is clipped in the top an bottom and it would be nice
to fix that and add these plot examples to the screenshot page opened
when clicking on the image.
Plots similar to 1 and 3 are there but no contour plot is shown.
Jens
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...> wrote:
> Oh, that is *much* better. Thank you!
>
> Ben Root
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote:
>>
>> It is now fixed. I just uploaded a higher resolution image of the same
>> thing.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 10/10/2012 04:31 PM, Damon McDougall wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...> wrote:
>> >> Looks like github has changed the layout of the default landing page
>> >> for any
>> >> github account. This now has the account's profile image shown much
>> >> larger
>> >> than originally intended. Our front page now has a very pixelated logo
>> >> on
>> >> display. Given how much we pride ourselves on high-quality images, we
>> >> should probably fix this:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/matplotlib
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >> Ben Root
>> > This has been bugging me for a while...
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
>> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
>> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
>> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
>> Mat...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>